| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Britain slow to learn from the Abu Ghraib scandal |
| 2005-01-20 |
| Posted by:Sock Puppet of Doom |
| #6 The humiliation was fine and was used as a way to weaken the enemy. More power to them. The mistake was made when they put film in the cameras. |
| Posted by: tex 2005-01-20 5:35:53 PM |
| #5 WA - So you're fine with gunning down shackled prisoners if the folks doing the gunning are in hostile territory? Seems to me that every square inch of Iraq is hostile territory so by your logic it would obviously have been OK to just kill offending prisoners at Abu Ghraib but humiliating them is somehow out of bounds? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-01-20 5:26:21 PM |
| #4 An Independent article - have to confess I didn't bother reading a word. Perhaps this scandal will help the likes of the Independent's readers to realise that even a fraction of the British military are capable of acting like twats when they're in a position of power over prisoners and aren't properly supervised. Not just 'Merkins. In fact, these things can and do happen in any Army. Howeverm, some punish the culprits, others decline to investigate, and still others hand out medals for it. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-01-20 12:13:08 PM |
| #3 And, just to clarify, i think all the men who faught in WW2 were heros (and i'm sure your grandad greatly deserved his later decoration), but even in a war like that we should investigate the shooting of prisoners, we were fighting for justice afterall. |
| Posted by: Winged Avenger 2005-01-20 8:49:02 AM |
| #2 Yeah but shooting a load of enemy troops when you are marching them through hostile territory single handed is understandable. Forcing them into bizaar sexual positions when they're shakled and naked in a high security prison (and taking photos of it) is simply demented. It should have been 3 or 4 depending on whether they were armed or not, perhaps with a promotion tacked onto 4 for his rapid reaction on seeing the grenade. (although it would be very hard to hide a large german WW2 stick grenade, fire the man who searched them). |
| Posted by: Winged Avenger 2005-01-20 8:37:03 AM |
| #1 These lefty morons need a reality check: My dad served in WW II and was present when a single GI was told to march a dozen German prisoners at gunpoint several miles to a detention facility. Said GI returned a few minutes later announcing that he'd killed all of the Germans because he thought one might have had a grenade despite their having been previously searched. Multiple Choice: What happened to this GI? 1. He was court-martialed and executed. 2. He was court-martialed and spent many years in prison. 3. He was court-martialed, spent a little time in prison, and was subsequently dishonorably discharged. 4. A thorough investigation determined that one of the Germans was indeed armed and the Army reluctantly cleared the GI. 5. Despite the fact that no German was armed the GI received an immediate field promotion, a commendation for bravery, and was later decorated. Anyone? |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-01-20 7:22:11 AM |